Off on a tangent here, but sometimes I think that flaming liberals want to (create a right for) women to abort a child until the age of 18. After all, it is her body....even though the kid is "officially" a human life, and is no longer in the womb. What I don't get is how they can charge a third party (through battery) with murder for causing a miscarriage but a woman can walk into PP and abort the same child, no questions asked. The former is murder and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The latter is a protected right. My logical brain spins in circles trying to figure out the reasoning and logic behind that disparate treatment of the same offense, materially speaking. But I digress.
Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Off on a tangent here, but sometimes I think that flaming liberals want to (create a right for) women to abort a child until the age of 18. After all, it is her body....even though the kid is "officially" a human life, and is no longer in the womb. What I don't get is how they can charge a third party (through battery) with murder for causing a miscarriage but a woman can walk into PP and abort the same child, no questions asked. The former is murder and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The latter is a protected right. My logical brain spins in circles trying to figure out the reasoning and logic behind that disparate treatment of the same offense, materially speaking. But I digress. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

The only possible logic here is that the woman consented to one but not the other. For a complete reconciliation with Roe v Wade, the fetal murder law would not kick in until the third trimester when the fetus was viable, but that is not what Illinois law states. It states from fertilization. 720 ILCS 5/9 - 1.2. This is merely an attempt to match up reasoning and does not necessarily reflect my own personal views. But this is straying way off topic here so I won't reply on this thread any further about this.

Off on a tangent here, but sometimes I think that flaming liberals want to (create a right for) women to abort a child until the age of 18. After all, it is her body....even though the kid is "officially" a human life, and is no longer in the womb. What I don't get is how they can charge a third party (through battery) with murder for causing a miscarriage but a woman can walk into PP and abort the same child, no questions asked. The former is murder and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The latter is a protected right. My logical brain spins in circles trying to figure out the reasoning and logic behind that disparate treatment of the same offense, materially speaking. But I digress. Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Apologies I was merely pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of the courts and politicians. Do as I say, not as I do. Liberals are already emboldened by the denials of cert in Friedman and Jackson, there's no telling what will happen now since they truly believe (delusionally) that SCOTUS has affirmed the constitutionality of AWBs within the Circuit
Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Apologies I was merely pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of the courts and politicians. Do as I say, not as I do. Liberals are already emboldened by the denials of cert in Friedman and Jackson, there's no telling what will happen now since they truly believe (delusionally) that SCOTUS has affirmed the constitutionality of AWBs within the Circuit Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

I'm with you skinny. No harm no foul. I just know that a lot of people that subscribe to these legal threads do so in anticipation of an update on a case they're watching closely. Since these cases tend to move slowly, whenever we get a "New reply to Wilson v. Cook County" email, we get excited about new case info or a fresh perspective on some aspect of the case. When these threads get derailed a moderator inevitably steps in a cleans house.

So, to the newbie who tried to tell Skinny where and where not to post - most of us who have been here a good long while care when Skinny posts even if you could try to argue it's slightly out of scope for the topic. His legal interpretations are very interesting to read.

Skinny - please continue to post whatever you want whenever you want. I know I for one enjoy whatever you post.

So, to the newbie who tried to tell Skinny where and where not to post - most of us who have been here a good long while care when Skinny posts even if you could try to argue it's slightly out of scope for the topic. His legal interpretations are very interesting to read.

Says the guy who who's been here a year less than I have. Look man, I'm not chastising skinny. I love his posts, they're some of the best stuff on this board. And I agree, his legal insights are great. But we have topics for a reason, and I don't think anyone should be above that. If post count past some imaginary threshold gives you 'seniority' over others so be it, I just don't think a thread about a specific supreme court case that has nothing to do with abortion is an appropriate place to debate the subject, that's all.

So, to the newbie who tried to tell Skinny where and where not to post - most of us who have been here a good long while care when Skinny posts even if you could try to argue it's slightly out of scope for the topic. His legal interpretations are very interesting to read.

Says the guy who who's been here a year less than I have. Look man, I'm not chastising skinny. I love his posts, they're some of the best stuff on this board. And I agree, his legal insights are great. But we have topics for a reason, and I don't think anyone should be above that. If post count past some imaginary threshold gives you 'seniority' over others so be it, I just don't think a thread about a specific supreme court case that has nothing to do with abortion is an appropriate place to debate the subject, that's all.

Perhaps...I don't wish to become the subject of an internal IC member dispute haha. While I appreciate the defense, I admit that I was off-topic. Chalk it up to being on a roll with some ideas that had been stewing in my head. That being said, let's get back on topic.
@singlecoilpickup Guitarist I take it? I'm partial to hums that can be tapped (preferably) or splittable hums. EMGs and Seymour Duncan's, but I mainly play metal. I digress.
Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Dormant but not dead, if I'm not mistaken. I'm curious how the judge will rule given that the SCOTUS has twice (maybe three times?) refused to hear any challenge to an AWB, along with the outcome of the Friedman case in the 7th circuit, but who knows? Maybe the court will actually strike the ban. Not likely, but I can still dream.

"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

Waiting for the decision by the 4th Circuit’s en banc decision in the Kolbe case, addressing whether strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied to the Maryland “assault weapons” ban. Hopefully, the 4th Circuit will reach its decision soon and apply strict scrutiny to the Maryland ban, which we could use to argue that strict scrutiny should be applied to the Cook County ban too.

It's still, as MrTriple said, "dormant but not dead".[/size]Waiting for the decision by the 4th Circuit’s [/size]en banc decision in the [/size]Kolbe case, addressing whether strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied to the Maryland “assault weapons” ban. [/size]Hopefully, the 4th Circuit will reach its decision soon and apply strict scrutiny to the Maryland ban, which we could use to argue that strict scrutiny should be applied to the Cook County ban too.[/size]

Although the judges in Cook seem rather anti, whoever's presiding over this case strikes me as surprisingly level-headed on the topic. He's not rushing to decisions either way, it seems, which is a refreshing change for once.

"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

It's still, as MrTriple said, "dormant but not dead".[/size]Waiting for the decision by the 4th Circuit’s [/size]en banc decision in the [/size]Kolbe case, addressing whether strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied to the Maryland “assault weapons” ban. [/size]Hopefully, the 4th Circuit will reach its decision soon and apply strict scrutiny to the Maryland ban, which we could use to argue that strict scrutiny should be applied to the Cook County ban too.[/size]

Although the judges in Cook seem rather anti, whoever's presiding over this case strikes me as surprisingly level-headed on the topic. He's not rushing to decisions either way, it seems, which is a refreshing change for once.

Well yes, but not exactly. The judge was being patient, but was running out of patience. He began pushing for this to go to trial before the end of this year. The ISRA/NRA attorneys recently had to make a motion to non-suit the case, which gives us up to a year to refile and continue where we left off.

Just wanted to remind every one that his law suit against the "Blair Holt Assault weapon ban" was a law written into law in response to blair holt being killed by a handgun and not an assault weapon (if there's a such thing)

Exodus 22:2-3
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.-Abolt

Perhaps I can shed a bit of light on the issue. I'm one of the expert witnesses on Wilson and previously on Friedman.

Wilson v. Cook County is not dead. Our attorney moved to voluntarily dismiss the case on July 28, about a week prior to when we were to go to court to set a trial date, because the judge was pushing for a date prior to Thanksgiving. The move allows us to refile within one year and pick up where we left off specifically meaning everything remains intact including the long, voluminous discovery we went through with witnesses all over the country.

The reason for this tactic is our attorney wants to wait for the 4th Circuit’s en banc decision in the Kolbe case. This is a critical step because the Kolbe case is about determining whether strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied to the Maryland “assault weapons” ban.

Our attorney looked at the unfavorable decisions in Friedman, Shew and Heller II cases and realized moving forward at this time would not be in our best interest. Conversely, the possibility of a favorable decision by the 4th Circuit would be worth waiting for. If they decide to apply strict scrutiny to the Maryland ban it gives us a stronger case to argue the point that strict scrutiny should also be applied to the Cook County ban. And then there is also the simple reality that currently, with Scalia gone, SCOTUS isn't as friendly as it once was.

So Wilson is not dead; it's biding its time and we're crossing our fingers.

Thank you for the update! Your decision here is a very logical one, I'm glad you guys are taking the slow way rather than trying to force things through.

"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

Oh, I'm just the bearer of the news. As an expert witness I don't have any input as to how they proceed. Please don't think that I'm anyone special or I have any control. I don't mean that in a negative way as the people who do make decisions are far smarter than I.

My role is nothing more than to discuss my area of expertise or, as in the case of Freidman, to make a video because it was impossible to demonstrate the live fire characteristics in a courtroom. I have a five person consulting group that provides a very wide array of subject matter expertise for both civil and criminal firearm and second amendment cases.